Total Posts:111|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Econ AMA: Infinity Edition

ResponsiblyIrresponsible
Posts: 12,398
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/6/2016 9:14:50 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
A lot of people are, it appears, greatly confused about economic policy -- this is epitomized by the droves of support for protectionist Donald Trump, as much as it is the increasing numbers of ignorant comments about the Federal Reserve.

Let's fix that.

Ask away.
~ResponsiblyIrresponsible

DDO's Economics Messiah
Non-Aggression
Posts: 4
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/6/2016 10:09:48 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 5/6/2016 9:14:50 PM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:

What would happen if the Federal Reserve were to be abolished tomorrow ?
ResponsiblyIrresponsible
Posts: 12,398
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/6/2016 10:17:30 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 5/6/2016 10:09:48 PM, Non-Aggression wrote:
At 5/6/2016 9:14:50 PM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:

What would happen if the Federal Reserve were to be abolished tomorrow ?

https://encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com...

^ That.

It would be an unmitigated disaster for so many reasons; even if you thought -- and you'd be wrong on thinking this, but feel free to -- that we'd be better off on a gold standard (libertarians) or a nationalized central bank (Green party: might take the form of Congress issuing money, for instance), you would be naive if you didn't concede that there would be ramifications to snapping your fingers and ending an institution with such a large pulse on the global financial system.

Let's explore it, though. Let's say tomorrow we ended the Fed. What would happen?

Well, it depends a lot on what the replacement is for issuing money. But let's say we don't designate one. The reason the US, unlike Greece, is able to borrow money is because we issue debt denominated in our currency -- this is enabled in large by the existence of a central bank to purchase that debt (not directly, it bears noting) should it become necessary and to influence interest rates in line with fundamentals. Without the Fed, the full faith and credit of the US government would be in jeopardy, so Treasury yields would probably soar on perceptions of default risk, investors would flee the dollar, which would send rippled throughout global asset markets, and that hardly scratches the surface of the "interconnectedness" story.

Basically, it would be a nightmare, and we shouldn't even be talking about it. I'd much rather focus on how we can have the most effective, transparent, and efficient central bank -- and surely there are areas where I think the Fed has erred. Ending it, though, is out of the question.
~ResponsiblyIrresponsible

DDO's Economics Messiah
PetersSmith
Posts: 5,817
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/7/2016 2:36:35 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 5/6/2016 9:14:50 PM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
A lot of people are, it appears, greatly confused about economic policy -- this is epitomized by the droves of support for protectionist Donald Trump, as much as it is the increasing numbers of ignorant comments about the Federal Reserve.

Let's fix that.

Ask away.

What do you think of the Bank Wars and Jackson's presidency in regards to them?
Empress of DDO (also Poll and Forum "Maintenance" Moderator)

"The two most important days in your life is the day you were born, and the day you find out why."
~Mark Twain

"Wow"
-Doge

"Don't believe everything you read on the internet just because there's a picture with a quote next to it."
~Abraham Lincoln

Guide to the Polls Section: http://www.debate.org...
ResponsiblyIrresponsible
Posts: 12,398
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/7/2016 2:39:06 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 5/7/2016 2:36:35 AM, PetersSmith wrote:
At 5/6/2016 9:14:50 PM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
A lot of people are, it appears, greatly confused about economic policy -- this is epitomized by the droves of support for protectionist Donald Trump, as much as it is the increasing numbers of ignorant comments about the Federal Reserve.

Let's fix that.

Ask away.

What do you think of the Bank Wars and Jackson's presidency in regards to them?

Let's see... I heard about this in my freshman-year US history class... (Actually, that's a lie: I slept through that class because it was at 8 am, and somehow walked away with an A..).

Suffice it to say, I'm not really an expert in this area because I think the answer is more politically than economically charged. Obviously I support the existence of the Fed, though the Bank of the US as I recall wasn't exactly a central bank as we'd define it today.

So I guess my answer is: I really don't know.
~ResponsiblyIrresponsible

DDO's Economics Messiah
PetersSmith
Posts: 5,817
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/7/2016 2:40:22 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 5/7/2016 2:39:06 AM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
At 5/7/2016 2:36:35 AM, PetersSmith wrote:
At 5/6/2016 9:14:50 PM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
A lot of people are, it appears, greatly confused about economic policy -- this is epitomized by the droves of support for protectionist Donald Trump, as much as it is the increasing numbers of ignorant comments about the Federal Reserve.

Let's fix that.

Ask away.

What do you think of the Bank Wars and Jackson's presidency in regards to them?

Let's see... I heard about this in my freshman-year US history class... (Actually, that's a lie: I slept through that class because it was at 8 am, and somehow walked away with an A..).

Suffice it to say, I'm not really an expert in this area because I think the answer is more politically than economically charged. Obviously I support the existence of the Fed, though the Bank of the US as I recall wasn't exactly a central bank as we'd define it today.

So I guess my answer is: I really don't know.

http://img.memecdn.com...
Empress of DDO (also Poll and Forum "Maintenance" Moderator)

"The two most important days in your life is the day you were born, and the day you find out why."
~Mark Twain

"Wow"
-Doge

"Don't believe everything you read on the internet just because there's a picture with a quote next to it."
~Abraham Lincoln

Guide to the Polls Section: http://www.debate.org...
ResponsiblyIrresponsible
Posts: 12,398
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/7/2016 2:42:22 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 5/7/2016 2:40:22 AM, PetersSmith wrote:
At 5/7/2016 2:39:06 AM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
At 5/7/2016 2:36:35 AM, PetersSmith wrote:
At 5/6/2016 9:14:50 PM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
A lot of people are, it appears, greatly confused about economic policy -- this is epitomized by the droves of support for protectionist Donald Trump, as much as it is the increasing numbers of ignorant comments about the Federal Reserve.

Let's fix that.

Ask away.

What do you think of the Bank Wars and Jackson's presidency in regards to them?

Let's see... I heard about this in my freshman-year US history class... (Actually, that's a lie: I slept through that class because it was at 8 am, and somehow walked away with an A..).

Suffice it to say, I'm not really an expert in this area because I think the answer is more politically than economically charged. Obviously I support the existence of the Fed, though the Bank of the US as I recall wasn't exactly a central bank as we'd define it today.

So I guess my answer is: I really don't know.

http://img.memecdn.com...

lol
~ResponsiblyIrresponsible

DDO's Economics Messiah
PetersSmith
Posts: 5,817
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/7/2016 2:42:51 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 5/7/2016 2:42:22 AM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
At 5/7/2016 2:40:22 AM, PetersSmith wrote:
At 5/7/2016 2:39:06 AM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
At 5/7/2016 2:36:35 AM, PetersSmith wrote:
At 5/6/2016 9:14:50 PM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
A lot of people are, it appears, greatly confused about economic policy -- this is epitomized by the droves of support for protectionist Donald Trump, as much as it is the increasing numbers of ignorant comments about the Federal Reserve.

Let's fix that.

Ask away.

What do you think of the Bank Wars and Jackson's presidency in regards to them?

Let's see... I heard about this in my freshman-year US history class... (Actually, that's a lie: I slept through that class because it was at 8 am, and somehow walked away with an A..).

Suffice it to say, I'm not really an expert in this area because I think the answer is more politically than economically charged. Obviously I support the existence of the Fed, though the Bank of the US as I recall wasn't exactly a central bank as we'd define it today.

So I guess my answer is: I really don't know.

http://img.memecdn.com...

lol

If there's a recession should the government spend more or less?
Empress of DDO (also Poll and Forum "Maintenance" Moderator)

"The two most important days in your life is the day you were born, and the day you find out why."
~Mark Twain

"Wow"
-Doge

"Don't believe everything you read on the internet just because there's a picture with a quote next to it."
~Abraham Lincoln

Guide to the Polls Section: http://www.debate.org...
ResponsiblyIrresponsible
Posts: 12,398
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/7/2016 2:43:41 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 5/7/2016 2:42:51 AM, PetersSmith wrote:
At 5/7/2016 2:42:22 AM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
At 5/7/2016 2:40:22 AM, PetersSmith wrote:
At 5/7/2016 2:39:06 AM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
At 5/7/2016 2:36:35 AM, PetersSmith wrote:
At 5/6/2016 9:14:50 PM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
A lot of people are, it appears, greatly confused about economic policy -- this is epitomized by the droves of support for protectionist Donald Trump, as much as it is the increasing numbers of ignorant comments about the Federal Reserve.

Let's fix that.

Ask away.

What do you think of the Bank Wars and Jackson's presidency in regards to them?

Let's see... I heard about this in my freshman-year US history class... (Actually, that's a lie: I slept through that class because it was at 8 am, and somehow walked away with an A..).

Suffice it to say, I'm not really an expert in this area because I think the answer is more politically than economically charged. Obviously I support the existence of the Fed, though the Bank of the US as I recall wasn't exactly a central bank as we'd define it today.

So I guess my answer is: I really don't know.

http://img.memecdn.com...

lol

If there's a recession should the government spend more or less?

More.
~ResponsiblyIrresponsible

DDO's Economics Messiah
PetersSmith
Posts: 5,817
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/7/2016 2:47:13 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 5/7/2016 2:43:41 AM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
At 5/7/2016 2:42:51 AM, PetersSmith wrote:
At 5/7/2016 2:42:22 AM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
At 5/7/2016 2:40:22 AM, PetersSmith wrote:
At 5/7/2016 2:39:06 AM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
At 5/7/2016 2:36:35 AM, PetersSmith wrote:
At 5/6/2016 9:14:50 PM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
A lot of people are, it appears, greatly confused about economic policy -- this is epitomized by the droves of support for protectionist Donald Trump, as much as it is the increasing numbers of ignorant comments about the Federal Reserve.

Let's fix that.

Ask away.

What do you think of the Bank Wars and Jackson's presidency in regards to them?

Let's see... I heard about this in my freshman-year US history class... (Actually, that's a lie: I slept through that class because it was at 8 am, and somehow walked away with an A..).

Suffice it to say, I'm not really an expert in this area because I think the answer is more politically than economically charged. Obviously I support the existence of the Fed, though the Bank of the US as I recall wasn't exactly a central bank as we'd define it today.

So I guess my answer is: I really don't know.

http://img.memecdn.com...

lol

If there's a recession should the government spend more or less?

More.

Do you think that the government should confine its activity to managing the growth of the supply of money and credit so that it closely tracks the growth in productivity in the economy as a whole, in order to stimulate private investment?
Empress of DDO (also Poll and Forum "Maintenance" Moderator)

"The two most important days in your life is the day you were born, and the day you find out why."
~Mark Twain

"Wow"
-Doge

"Don't believe everything you read on the internet just because there's a picture with a quote next to it."
~Abraham Lincoln

Guide to the Polls Section: http://www.debate.org...
ResponsiblyIrresponsible
Posts: 12,398
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/7/2016 2:49:20 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 5/7/2016 2:47:13 AM, PetersSmith wrote:
At 5/7/2016 2:43:41 AM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
At 5/7/2016 2:42:51 AM, PetersSmith wrote:
At 5/7/2016 2:42:22 AM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
At 5/7/2016 2:40:22 AM, PetersSmith wrote:
At 5/7/2016 2:39:06 AM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
At 5/7/2016 2:36:35 AM, PetersSmith wrote:
At 5/6/2016 9:14:50 PM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
A lot of people are, it appears, greatly confused about economic policy -- this is epitomized by the droves of support for protectionist Donald Trump, as much as it is the increasing numbers of ignorant comments about the Federal Reserve.

Let's fix that.

Ask away.

What do you think of the Bank Wars and Jackson's presidency in regards to them?

Let's see... I heard about this in my freshman-year US history class... (Actually, that's a lie: I slept through that class because it was at 8 am, and somehow walked away with an A..).

Suffice it to say, I'm not really an expert in this area because I think the answer is more politically than economically charged. Obviously I support the existence of the Fed, though the Bank of the US as I recall wasn't exactly a central bank as we'd define it today.

So I guess my answer is: I really don't know.

http://img.memecdn.com...

lol

If there's a recession should the government spend more or less?

More.

Do you think that the government should confine its activity to managing the growth of the supply of money and credit so that it closely tracks the growth in productivity in the economy as a whole, in order to stimulate private investment?

So change in M = change in Y?

No, that assumes constant velocity, which would be silly.
~ResponsiblyIrresponsible

DDO's Economics Messiah
PetersSmith
Posts: 5,817
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/7/2016 2:50:24 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 5/7/2016 2:49:20 AM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
At 5/7/2016 2:47:13 AM, PetersSmith wrote:
At 5/7/2016 2:43:41 AM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
At 5/7/2016 2:42:51 AM, PetersSmith wrote:
At 5/7/2016 2:42:22 AM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
At 5/7/2016 2:40:22 AM, PetersSmith wrote:
At 5/7/2016 2:39:06 AM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
At 5/7/2016 2:36:35 AM, PetersSmith wrote:
At 5/6/2016 9:14:50 PM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
A lot of people are, it appears, greatly confused about economic policy -- this is epitomized by the droves of support for protectionist Donald Trump, as much as it is the increasing numbers of ignorant comments about the Federal Reserve.

Let's fix that.

Ask away.

What do you think of the Bank Wars and Jackson's presidency in regards to them?

Let's see... I heard about this in my freshman-year US history class... (Actually, that's a lie: I slept through that class because it was at 8 am, and somehow walked away with an A..).

Suffice it to say, I'm not really an expert in this area because I think the answer is more politically than economically charged. Obviously I support the existence of the Fed, though the Bank of the US as I recall wasn't exactly a central bank as we'd define it today.

So I guess my answer is: I really don't know.

http://img.memecdn.com...

lol

If there's a recession should the government spend more or less?

More.

Do you think that the government should confine its activity to managing the growth of the supply of money and credit so that it closely tracks the growth in productivity in the economy as a whole, in order to stimulate private investment?

So change in M = change in Y?

No, that assumes constant velocity, which would be silly.

So would you disagree with the belief that markets tend toward efficiency and the rational allocation of resources if left alone, thus reducing the need for regulation by government?
Empress of DDO (also Poll and Forum "Maintenance" Moderator)

"The two most important days in your life is the day you were born, and the day you find out why."
~Mark Twain

"Wow"
-Doge

"Don't believe everything you read on the internet just because there's a picture with a quote next to it."
~Abraham Lincoln

Guide to the Polls Section: http://www.debate.org...
ResponsiblyIrresponsible
Posts: 12,398
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/7/2016 2:55:24 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 5/7/2016 2:50:24 AM, PetersSmith wrote:
At 5/7/2016 2:49:20 AM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
At 5/7/2016 2:47:13 AM, PetersSmith wrote:
At 5/7/2016 2:43:41 AM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
At 5/7/2016 2:42:51 AM, PetersSmith wrote:
At 5/7/2016 2:42:22 AM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
At 5/7/2016 2:40:22 AM, PetersSmith wrote:
At 5/7/2016 2:39:06 AM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
At 5/7/2016 2:36:35 AM, PetersSmith wrote:
At 5/6/2016 9:14:50 PM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
A lot of people are, it appears, greatly confused about economic policy -- this is epitomized by the droves of support for protectionist Donald Trump, as much as it is the increasing numbers of ignorant comments about the Federal Reserve.

Let's fix that.

Ask away.

What do you think of the Bank Wars and Jackson's presidency in regards to them?

Let's see... I heard about this in my freshman-year US history class... (Actually, that's a lie: I slept through that class because it was at 8 am, and somehow walked away with an A..).

Suffice it to say, I'm not really an expert in this area because I think the answer is more politically than economically charged. Obviously I support the existence of the Fed, though the Bank of the US as I recall wasn't exactly a central bank as we'd define it today.

So I guess my answer is: I really don't know.

http://img.memecdn.com...

lol

If there's a recession should the government spend more or less?

More.

Do you think that the government should confine its activity to managing the growth of the supply of money and credit so that it closely tracks the growth in productivity in the economy as a whole, in order to stimulate private investment?

So change in M = change in Y?

No, that assumes constant velocity, which would be silly.

So would you disagree with the belief that markets tend toward efficiency and the rational allocation of resources if left alone, thus reducing the need for regulation by government?

I don't think rejecting velocity necessarily lends itself to inefficient markets: lingering downward nominal rigidities need not mean markets are inefficient... just that they're not "self correcting" over this vaguely-defined "long run."

But, no, I actually thing that markets are more or less efficient.
~ResponsiblyIrresponsible

DDO's Economics Messiah
PetersSmith
Posts: 5,817
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/7/2016 2:56:59 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 5/7/2016 2:55:24 AM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:

Do you think that having a national debt is really a "bad thing"? Where running a budget deficit could actually stimulate economic activity?
Empress of DDO (also Poll and Forum "Maintenance" Moderator)

"The two most important days in your life is the day you were born, and the day you find out why."
~Mark Twain

"Wow"
-Doge

"Don't believe everything you read on the internet just because there's a picture with a quote next to it."
~Abraham Lincoln

Guide to the Polls Section: http://www.debate.org...
ResponsiblyIrresponsible
Posts: 12,398
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/7/2016 2:58:53 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 5/7/2016 2:56:59 AM, PetersSmith wrote:
At 5/7/2016 2:55:24 AM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:

Do you think that having a national debt is really a "bad thing"?

No, not at all.

Where running a budget deficit could actually stimulate economic activity?

I don't think budget deficits stimulate the economy unless the Fed is asleep at the wheel. That notwithstanding, I'm not gung-ho about indiscriminately slashing deficits for no apparent reason, especially when interest rates are at or near zero.
~ResponsiblyIrresponsible

DDO's Economics Messiah
PetersSmith
Posts: 5,817
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/7/2016 3:02:02 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 5/7/2016 2:58:53 AM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
At 5/7/2016 2:56:59 AM, PetersSmith wrote:
At 5/7/2016 2:55:24 AM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:

Do you think that having a national debt is really a "bad thing"?

No, not at all.

Where running a budget deficit could actually stimulate economic activity?

I don't think budget deficits stimulate the economy unless the Fed is asleep at the wheel. That notwithstanding, I'm not gung-ho about indiscriminately slashing deficits for no apparent reason, especially when interest rates are at or near zero.

Do you think that increasing the payroll tax by two percent of earnings would solve the system's fiscal shortfall (Boston College Center for Retirement Research, 2010)?
Empress of DDO (also Poll and Forum "Maintenance" Moderator)

"The two most important days in your life is the day you were born, and the day you find out why."
~Mark Twain

"Wow"
-Doge

"Don't believe everything you read on the internet just because there's a picture with a quote next to it."
~Abraham Lincoln

Guide to the Polls Section: http://www.debate.org...
ResponsiblyIrresponsible
Posts: 12,398
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/7/2016 3:05:17 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 5/7/2016 3:02:02 AM, PetersSmith wrote:
At 5/7/2016 2:58:53 AM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
At 5/7/2016 2:56:59 AM, PetersSmith wrote:
At 5/7/2016 2:55:24 AM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:

Do you think that having a national debt is really a "bad thing"?

No, not at all.

Where running a budget deficit could actually stimulate economic activity?

I don't think budget deficits stimulate the economy unless the Fed is asleep at the wheel. That notwithstanding, I'm not gung-ho about indiscriminately slashing deficits for no apparent reason, especially when interest rates are at or near zero.

Do you think that increasing the payroll tax by two percent of earnings would solve the system's fiscal shortfall (Boston College Center for Retirement Research, 2010)?

Why do I get the feeling that all of these questions are part of some quiz? Lol.

No, I don't. I like math far too much to accept that a very minor increase in a regressive tax with an incredibly low cap, such that the entirety of the burden falls on lower-income people, would solve a shortfall as large as the long-run shortfall in SS.
~ResponsiblyIrresponsible

DDO's Economics Messiah
PetersSmith
Posts: 5,817
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/7/2016 3:06:55 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 5/7/2016 3:05:17 AM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
At 5/7/2016 3:02:02 AM, PetersSmith wrote:
At 5/7/2016 2:58:53 AM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
At 5/7/2016 2:56:59 AM, PetersSmith wrote:
At 5/7/2016 2:55:24 AM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:

Do you think that having a national debt is really a "bad thing"?

No, not at all.

Where running a budget deficit could actually stimulate economic activity?

I don't think budget deficits stimulate the economy unless the Fed is asleep at the wheel. That notwithstanding, I'm not gung-ho about indiscriminately slashing deficits for no apparent reason, especially when interest rates are at or near zero.

Do you think that increasing the payroll tax by two percent of earnings would solve the system's fiscal shortfall (Boston College Center for Retirement Research, 2010)?

Why do I get the feeling that all of these questions are part of some quiz? Lol.

No, I don't. I like math far too much to accept that a very minor increase in a regressive tax with an incredibly low cap, such that the entirety of the burden falls on lower-income people, would solve a shortfall as large as the long-run shortfall in SS.

No, they're not. I don't take any economics classes. They're just some random questions that I thought you'd enjoy answering.

Do you think that the administration of welfare programs should be given back to the federal government, instead of having 50 different welfare programs for each state in the US?
Empress of DDO (also Poll and Forum "Maintenance" Moderator)

"The two most important days in your life is the day you were born, and the day you find out why."
~Mark Twain

"Wow"
-Doge

"Don't believe everything you read on the internet just because there's a picture with a quote next to it."
~Abraham Lincoln

Guide to the Polls Section: http://www.debate.org...
ResponsiblyIrresponsible
Posts: 12,398
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/7/2016 3:08:55 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 5/7/2016 3:06:55 AM, PetersSmith wrote:
At 5/7/2016 3:05:17 AM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
At 5/7/2016 3:02:02 AM, PetersSmith wrote:
At 5/7/2016 2:58:53 AM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
At 5/7/2016 2:56:59 AM, PetersSmith wrote:
At 5/7/2016 2:55:24 AM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:

Do you think that having a national debt is really a "bad thing"?

No, not at all.

Where running a budget deficit could actually stimulate economic activity?

I don't think budget deficits stimulate the economy unless the Fed is asleep at the wheel. That notwithstanding, I'm not gung-ho about indiscriminately slashing deficits for no apparent reason, especially when interest rates are at or near zero.

Do you think that increasing the payroll tax by two percent of earnings would solve the system's fiscal shortfall (Boston College Center for Retirement Research, 2010)?

Why do I get the feeling that all of these questions are part of some quiz? Lol.

No, I don't. I like math far too much to accept that a very minor increase in a regressive tax with an incredibly low cap, such that the entirety of the burden falls on lower-income people, would solve a shortfall as large as the long-run shortfall in SS.

No, they're not. I don't take any economics classes. They're just some random questions that I thought you'd enjoy answering.

Interesting.

Do you think that the administration of welfare programs should be given back to the federal government, instead of having 50 different welfare programs for each state in the US?

No, I'm not a fan of letting, say, Texas throw people out on the street.
~ResponsiblyIrresponsible

DDO's Economics Messiah
PetersSmith
Posts: 5,817
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/7/2016 3:13:45 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 5/7/2016 3:08:55 AM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
At 5/7/2016 3:06:55 AM, PetersSmith wrote:
At 5/7/2016 3:05:17 AM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
At 5/7/2016 3:02:02 AM, PetersSmith wrote:
At 5/7/2016 2:58:53 AM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
At 5/7/2016 2:56:59 AM, PetersSmith wrote:
At 5/7/2016 2:55:24 AM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:

Do you think that having a national debt is really a "bad thing"?

No, not at all.

Where running a budget deficit could actually stimulate economic activity?

I don't think budget deficits stimulate the economy unless the Fed is asleep at the wheel. That notwithstanding, I'm not gung-ho about indiscriminately slashing deficits for no apparent reason, especially when interest rates are at or near zero.

Do you think that increasing the payroll tax by two percent of earnings would solve the system's fiscal shortfall (Boston College Center for Retirement Research, 2010)?

Why do I get the feeling that all of these questions are part of some quiz? Lol.

No, I don't. I like math far too much to accept that a very minor increase in a regressive tax with an incredibly low cap, such that the entirety of the burden falls on lower-income people, would solve a shortfall as large as the long-run shortfall in SS.

No, they're not. I don't take any economics classes. They're just some random questions that I thought you'd enjoy answering.

Interesting.

Do you think that the administration of welfare programs should be given back to the federal government, instead of having 50 different welfare programs for each state in the US?

No, I'm not a fan of letting, say, Texas throw people out on the street.

How do you think the government can solve the substantial balance-of-payment deficit (money is leaving the country more than what's being brought in)?
Empress of DDO (also Poll and Forum "Maintenance" Moderator)

"The two most important days in your life is the day you were born, and the day you find out why."
~Mark Twain

"Wow"
-Doge

"Don't believe everything you read on the internet just because there's a picture with a quote next to it."
~Abraham Lincoln

Guide to the Polls Section: http://www.debate.org...
ResponsiblyIrresponsible
Posts: 12,398
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/7/2016 3:14:20 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 5/7/2016 3:13:45 AM, PetersSmith wrote:
At 5/7/2016 3:08:55 AM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
At 5/7/2016 3:06:55 AM, PetersSmith wrote:
At 5/7/2016 3:05:17 AM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
At 5/7/2016 3:02:02 AM, PetersSmith wrote:
At 5/7/2016 2:58:53 AM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
At 5/7/2016 2:56:59 AM, PetersSmith wrote:
At 5/7/2016 2:55:24 AM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:

Do you think that having a national debt is really a "bad thing"?

No, not at all.

Where running a budget deficit could actually stimulate economic activity?

I don't think budget deficits stimulate the economy unless the Fed is asleep at the wheel. That notwithstanding, I'm not gung-ho about indiscriminately slashing deficits for no apparent reason, especially when interest rates are at or near zero.

Do you think that increasing the payroll tax by two percent of earnings would solve the system's fiscal shortfall (Boston College Center for Retirement Research, 2010)?

Why do I get the feeling that all of these questions are part of some quiz? Lol.

No, I don't. I like math far too much to accept that a very minor increase in a regressive tax with an incredibly low cap, such that the entirety of the burden falls on lower-income people, would solve a shortfall as large as the long-run shortfall in SS.

No, they're not. I don't take any economics classes. They're just some random questions that I thought you'd enjoy answering.

Interesting.

Do you think that the administration of welfare programs should be given back to the federal government, instead of having 50 different welfare programs for each state in the US?

No, I'm not a fan of letting, say, Texas throw people out on the street.

How do you think the government can solve the substantial balance-of-payment deficit (money is leaving the country more than what's being brought in)?

It's not something we need to solve, lol.
~ResponsiblyIrresponsible

DDO's Economics Messiah
PetersSmith
Posts: 5,817
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/7/2016 3:16:04 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 5/7/2016 3:14:20 AM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
At 5/7/2016 3:13:45 AM, PetersSmith wrote:
At 5/7/2016 3:08:55 AM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
At 5/7/2016 3:06:55 AM, PetersSmith wrote:
At 5/7/2016 3:05:17 AM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
At 5/7/2016 3:02:02 AM, PetersSmith wrote:
At 5/7/2016 2:58:53 AM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
At 5/7/2016 2:56:59 AM, PetersSmith wrote:
At 5/7/2016 2:55:24 AM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:

Do you think that having a national debt is really a "bad thing"?

No, not at all.

Where running a budget deficit could actually stimulate economic activity?

I don't think budget deficits stimulate the economy unless the Fed is asleep at the wheel. That notwithstanding, I'm not gung-ho about indiscriminately slashing deficits for no apparent reason, especially when interest rates are at or near zero.

Do you think that increasing the payroll tax by two percent of earnings would solve the system's fiscal shortfall (Boston College Center for Retirement Research, 2010)?

Why do I get the feeling that all of these questions are part of some quiz? Lol.

No, I don't. I like math far too much to accept that a very minor increase in a regressive tax with an incredibly low cap, such that the entirety of the burden falls on lower-income people, would solve a shortfall as large as the long-run shortfall in SS.

No, they're not. I don't take any economics classes. They're just some random questions that I thought you'd enjoy answering.

Interesting.

Do you think that the administration of welfare programs should be given back to the federal government, instead of having 50 different welfare programs for each state in the US?

No, I'm not a fan of letting, say, Texas throw people out on the street.

How do you think the government can solve the substantial balance-of-payment deficit (money is leaving the country more than what's being brought in)?

It's not something we need to solve, lol.

But don't we need to keep the balance of payments in positive territory, thus exporting more goods and services than importing, in order to prevent the decline in the value of our nation's currency in international markets?
Empress of DDO (also Poll and Forum "Maintenance" Moderator)

"The two most important days in your life is the day you were born, and the day you find out why."
~Mark Twain

"Wow"
-Doge

"Don't believe everything you read on the internet just because there's a picture with a quote next to it."
~Abraham Lincoln

Guide to the Polls Section: http://www.debate.org...
ResponsiblyIrresponsible
Posts: 12,398
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/7/2016 3:53:11 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 5/7/2016 3:16:04 AM, PetersSmith wrote:
At 5/7/2016 3:14:20 AM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
At 5/7/2016 3:13:45 AM, PetersSmith wrote:
At 5/7/2016 3:08:55 AM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
At 5/7/2016 3:06:55 AM, PetersSmith wrote:
At 5/7/2016 3:05:17 AM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
At 5/7/2016 3:02:02 AM, PetersSmith wrote:
At 5/7/2016 2:58:53 AM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
At 5/7/2016 2:56:59 AM, PetersSmith wrote:
At 5/7/2016 2:55:24 AM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:

Do you think that having a national debt is really a "bad thing"?

No, not at all.

Where running a budget deficit could actually stimulate economic activity?

I don't think budget deficits stimulate the economy unless the Fed is asleep at the wheel. That notwithstanding, I'm not gung-ho about indiscriminately slashing deficits for no apparent reason, especially when interest rates are at or near zero.

Do you think that increasing the payroll tax by two percent of earnings would solve the system's fiscal shortfall (Boston College Center for Retirement Research, 2010)?

Why do I get the feeling that all of these questions are part of some quiz? Lol.

No, I don't. I like math far too much to accept that a very minor increase in a regressive tax with an incredibly low cap, such that the entirety of the burden falls on lower-income people, would solve a shortfall as large as the long-run shortfall in SS.

No, they're not. I don't take any economics classes. They're just some random questions that I thought you'd enjoy answering.

Interesting.

Do you think that the administration of welfare programs should be given back to the federal government, instead of having 50 different welfare programs for each state in the US?

No, I'm not a fan of letting, say, Texas throw people out on the street.

How do you think the government can solve the substantial balance-of-payment deficit (money is leaving the country more than what's being brought in)?

It's not something we need to solve, lol.

But don't we need to keep the balance of payments in positive territory, thus exporting more goods and services than importing, in order to prevent the decline in the value of our nation's currency in international markets?

No, the opposite would be true. If we have a balance of payments deficit, we have a foreign direct investment surplus -- so we're buying more stuff abroad, but we're giving them paper (T bonds, corporate bonds, etc.), so that pushes UP on the value of the dollar.

But letting the dollar appreciate is.... not a problem.
~ResponsiblyIrresponsible

DDO's Economics Messiah
PetersSmith
Posts: 5,817
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/7/2016 3:57:26 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 5/7/2016 3:53:11 AM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:

Should the government tax all income rather than just income from wages and salaries, in order to solve the long-term trust fun problem?
Empress of DDO (also Poll and Forum "Maintenance" Moderator)

"The two most important days in your life is the day you were born, and the day you find out why."
~Mark Twain

"Wow"
-Doge

"Don't believe everything you read on the internet just because there's a picture with a quote next to it."
~Abraham Lincoln

Guide to the Polls Section: http://www.debate.org...
ResponsiblyIrresponsible
Posts: 12,398
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/7/2016 3:59:46 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 5/7/2016 3:57:26 AM, PetersSmith wrote:
At 5/7/2016 3:53:11 AM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:

Should the government tax all income rather than just income from wages and salaries, in order to solve the long-term trust fun problem?

They already tax all income. I can't think of a single source of "income" that isn't in one way or another taxed. I guess SS benefits below a certain level or welfare benefits aren't taxed, but they were taxed at one point, which is... how they were paid out.

But, no, I'd only tax consumption spending.
~ResponsiblyIrresponsible

DDO's Economics Messiah
PetersSmith
Posts: 5,817
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/7/2016 4:03:07 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 5/7/2016 3:59:46 AM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
At 5/7/2016 3:57:26 AM, PetersSmith wrote:
At 5/7/2016 3:53:11 AM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:

Should the government tax all income rather than just income from wages and salaries, in order to solve the long-term trust fun problem?

They already tax all income. I can't think of a single source of "income" that isn't in one way or another taxed. I guess SS benefits below a certain level or welfare benefits aren't taxed, but they were taxed at one point, which is... how they were paid out.

But, no, I'd only tax consumption spending.

Should we raise the ceiling on taxable income subject to payroll tax ($110,100 in 2012)?
Empress of DDO (also Poll and Forum "Maintenance" Moderator)

"The two most important days in your life is the day you were born, and the day you find out why."
~Mark Twain

"Wow"
-Doge

"Don't believe everything you read on the internet just because there's a picture with a quote next to it."
~Abraham Lincoln

Guide to the Polls Section: http://www.debate.org...
ResponsiblyIrresponsible
Posts: 12,398
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/7/2016 4:08:54 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 5/7/2016 4:03:07 AM, PetersSmith wrote:
At 5/7/2016 3:59:46 AM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
At 5/7/2016 3:57:26 AM, PetersSmith wrote:
At 5/7/2016 3:53:11 AM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:

Should the government tax all income rather than just income from wages and salaries, in order to solve the long-term trust fun problem?

They already tax all income. I can't think of a single source of "income" that isn't in one way or another taxed. I guess SS benefits below a certain level or welfare benefits aren't taxed, but they were taxed at one point, which is... how they were paid out.

But, no, I'd only tax consumption spending.

Should we raise the ceiling on taxable income subject to payroll tax ($110,100 in 2012)?

Probably. It's a bit tricky, though. It's a regressive tax by its nature, which sucks, but an increase in the payroll tax is a de-facto wage hike, for all intents and purposes (at least from the employer side), so it intensifies the issue of downward rigidities. Not to mention, it has significant implications for the willingness to work, perhaps more than virtually any other tax because it's probably the most salient.

What I might support is lifting the cap and making the rate structure a bit more graduated, so it doesn't spike until your income hits, say, $150k or something. That's a balance, of course, between progressivity and generating sufficient revenue or, even, raising enough revenue to maintain the long-term solvency of Social Security, but I'm unconvinced that they really could, or should, be done with payroll taxes alone.
~ResponsiblyIrresponsible

DDO's Economics Messiah
PetersSmith
Posts: 5,817
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/7/2016 4:09:57 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 5/7/2016 4:08:54 AM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
At 5/7/2016 4:03:07 AM, PetersSmith wrote:
At 5/7/2016 3:59:46 AM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
At 5/7/2016 3:57:26 AM, PetersSmith wrote:
At 5/7/2016 3:53:11 AM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:

Should the government tax all income rather than just income from wages and salaries, in order to solve the long-term trust fun problem?

They already tax all income. I can't think of a single source of "income" that isn't in one way or another taxed. I guess SS benefits below a certain level or welfare benefits aren't taxed, but they were taxed at one point, which is... how they were paid out.

But, no, I'd only tax consumption spending.

Should we raise the ceiling on taxable income subject to payroll tax ($110,100 in 2012)?

Probably. It's a bit tricky, though. It's a regressive tax by its nature, which sucks, but an increase in the payroll tax is a de-facto wage hike, for all intents and purposes (at least from the employer side), so it intensifies the issue of downward rigidities. Not to mention, it has significant implications for the willingness to work, perhaps more than virtually any other tax because it's probably the most salient.

What I might support is lifting the cap and making the rate structure a bit more graduated, so it doesn't spike until your income hits, say, $150k or something. That's a balance, of course, between progressivity and generating sufficient revenue or, even, raising enough revenue to maintain the long-term solvency of Social Security, but I'm unconvinced that they really could, or should, be done with payroll taxes alone.

Alright, I'm out of random things.
Empress of DDO (also Poll and Forum "Maintenance" Moderator)

"The two most important days in your life is the day you were born, and the day you find out why."
~Mark Twain

"Wow"
-Doge

"Don't believe everything you read on the internet just because there's a picture with a quote next to it."
~Abraham Lincoln

Guide to the Polls Section: http://www.debate.org...
ResponsiblyIrresponsible
Posts: 12,398
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/7/2016 4:11:07 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 5/7/2016 4:09:57 AM, PetersSmith wrote:
At 5/7/2016 4:08:54 AM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
At 5/7/2016 4:03:07 AM, PetersSmith wrote:
At 5/7/2016 3:59:46 AM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
At 5/7/2016 3:57:26 AM, PetersSmith wrote:
At 5/7/2016 3:53:11 AM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:

Should the government tax all income rather than just income from wages and salaries, in order to solve the long-term trust fun problem?

They already tax all income. I can't think of a single source of "income" that isn't in one way or another taxed. I guess SS benefits below a certain level or welfare benefits aren't taxed, but they were taxed at one point, which is... how they were paid out.

But, no, I'd only tax consumption spending.

Should we raise the ceiling on taxable income subject to payroll tax ($110,100 in 2012)?

Probably. It's a bit tricky, though. It's a regressive tax by its nature, which sucks, but an increase in the payroll tax is a de-facto wage hike, for all intents and purposes (at least from the employer side), so it intensifies the issue of downward rigidities. Not to mention, it has significant implications for the willingness to work, perhaps more than virtually any other tax because it's probably the most salient.

What I might support is lifting the cap and making the rate structure a bit more graduated, so it doesn't spike until your income hits, say, $150k or something. That's a balance, of course, between progressivity and generating sufficient revenue or, even, raising enough revenue to maintain the long-term solvency of Social Security, but I'm unconvinced that they really could, or should, be done with payroll taxes alone.

Alright, I'm out of random things.

Lol. Well, if you think of anything, let me know. This was fun.
~ResponsiblyIrresponsible

DDO's Economics Messiah